Criminal Conspiracy (John Gotti Trial)

According to 18 U.S.C. § 371 (2007), a charge of criminal conspiracy is valid if a person plots or agrees with another person to commit an act, which if actually carried out, is a criminal offense in and of itself. E.g.,The ‘Lectric Law Library, Conspiracy, http://www.lectlaw.com/def/c103.htm (last visted September 1, 2010). The crime of conspiracy is difficult to pin down simply because it is usually a verbal agreement between two or more people. That boils down to a “he said, she said” argument based on who is more credible. If an act has been committed in which two people were involved, we can pretty easily assume they conspired to commit the crime. John Gotti Jr. was accused of conspiracy to commit murder in the killings of George Grosso, Louis DiBono and Bruce John Gotterup. E.g., Christine Armario & Tom Hayes, An Indictment Links Gotti To 3 Killings in New York, New York Sun, http://www.nysun.com/new-york/gotti-arrested-on-murder-conspiracy/83225/ (last visited September 1, 2010). In the case of John Gotti Jr.’s involvement in the deaths of the three individuals he was accused of conspiring to have murdered, the only evidence we have is the word of a former associate. Provided the facts in the case are as described, that Gotti did indeed order hits on the three men, then he would indeed be guilty of conspiracy and subject to indictment under the law. Law enforcement had linked Gotti to several criminal enterprises and pegged him as a chief operator in the Gambino crime family. Id.
          The question here is not whether Gotti committed the murders but did he conspire to have the murders committed. The courts had initially determined that a conspiracy conviction requires “proof of an overt act in furtherance of the conspiracy" See Whitfield v. United States, 125 S. Ct. 687 (2005) (No. 03-1293), but after further review in United States v. Shabani, 513 U.S. 10 (1994), determined that evidence of an overt act is not required. That validated, in my opinion, a conspiracy charge against Gotti, but from the information provided, we can’t really tell what level of involvement he had in the crimes. So that takes the the burden of proof falling essentially on one man’s word against Gotti’s. The jury in that case felt there was not enough evidence to convict him, the court declared a mistrial and he was released from prison. E.g. Prosecution's case against Junior Gotti wasn't credible, juror says, Kenny Porpora & Larry McShane, http://www.nydailynews.com/news/ny_crime/ 2009/12/02/2009-12-02_their_case_wasnt_credible_juror_says.html#ixzz0yPGDbGbR (last visited September 2, 2010).
          It seems to me that conspiracy by itself is an awfully difficult thing to prove in the courtroom. Unless there is physical evidence linking someone to a crime or to a plot to commit a crime, it boils down to a battle of individual credibility. In this situation, when you have a figure who is very well known, who has been linked to a major criminal operation, and who has repeatedly faced charges (that have never stuck), a soft charge like conspiracy is grasping at straws. Someone who can afford the best legal counsel money can buy probably isn’t going to be convicted by the testimony of a single witness who is only testifying to cut his own deal.